I guess if your view of "leadership" is taking charge on actual issues that affect the United States and on issues the President would actually control like foreign policy and economic policy, then Romney has shown leadership. But if your view of "leadership" is stopping your long planned-out trip in the Middle East so you can come home and defend Palin's honor, then, no, Romney has not shown leadership.

I marvel at how today's "conservative pundits" have managed to reduce political discussions into soap opera-like back and forths among personalities.

No, Mr. Savage, leadership is about reducing the long term growth medicare and understanding the complexities of Middle East politics. It is not making sure that Sarah Palin is effectively perceived as being the victim.

Once again you don't get it. This is much bigger than Palin or the tea party. The left is attempting to use the shooting to stifle free speech in political ads, institute the Fairness Doctrine, blunt the opposition to ObamaCare, inact gun control laws. Basically, they want anyone who disagrees with them to sit down and shut up.

Just to add, she did not mention herself, even once, in her statement. It was a defense of everyone who was unfairly tied to the shooting, and a rebuke to anyone who feels the need to stifle dissention. I have no doubt that she would have responded to this whether her name was brought up or not.

And what has happened in the past week? The left tried to pin it on the right. That failed. They then tried to pin it on lack of gun control. That failed. They then tried to pin it on lack of mental health freebies. That is fizzling. Now one of their own stands accused of threatening a Tea Party member.

All this happened without Romney having to lift a finger.

Don't get me wrong. I fully support Sarah Palin in what she did. Those creeps on the left tried to pin the massacre on her, and she held her tongue for four whole days. She showed real maturity there. Then she had to go and make the reference to "blood libel".

If she had given the exact same speech but left out that bit, she would have hoisted those lefties on their own petard. But because she used that phrase, it just feeds the controversy.

Now, if she is just interested in being a GOP celebrity, such as Glenn Beck and the like, what she did was fine. It keeps her name in the spotlight with the focus on her. But that is a stupid thing to do if she is planning on running for President.

Good grief. Just look what a hash the last two years have been with a partisan President always opening his mouth to slam his opposition. Do you really think that America will be interested in switching out one foot-in-mouth President for another?

Sarah Palin is NOT stupid. She is NOT dim-witted or foolish. She is very smart and very savvy. Now, since it is foolish to throw that phrase in there if she was running for President, but clever if she is content to be a GOP celebrity, ...

A lot of Romney supporters on this site defended Palin last week and withheld being critical of her during the really sleazy attacks by the Left.

Your posting this article and the opinions of this jackass, prove you merely will seek any oppurtunity to stir the pot.

There were many oppurtunities for Romney supporters to opt for political cheap shots lasts, and I was rather pleased none were taken.It's a real disappointment you felt the need to travel a lower road.

My respect level for you has dropped a few notches. I look forward to an oppurtunity to restore it.

Did it ever occur to anyone, that while the left was spewing it's hate and and amid all the political noise of last week, the vast majority of American people were far from concerned about politcal back-biting, the Fairness Doctrine, Gun Laws, etc?

While those are all worthy and important issues to guard against, not every second of every day is politcal battle. Let the Left make the noise during what should have been a respectful time.

The immediate polling showed the Leftists screwed the pooch, so why all the hysteria, drama and demands every politician fall all over themselves to issue a statement?

A lot of Romney supporters on this site defended Palin last week and withheld being critical of her during the really sleazy attacks by the Left.

Your posting this article and the opinions of this jackass, prove you merely will seek any oppurtunity to stir the pot.

There were many oppurtunities for Romney supporters to opt for political cheap shots lasts, and I was rather pleased none were taken.It's a real disappointment you felt the need to travel a lower road.

My respect level for you has dropped a few notches. I look forward to an oppurtunity to restore it. Doug

Give me a break. I thought about posting it two days ago, but refrained. After Bosman decided to publish back to back posts spelling Palin's "doom", I was left with no choice but to post it.

Michael Savage was briefly broadcast in my area. During that I time I listened to him a few times. It didn't take me long to decide that I can't stand that guy. He has absolutely no credibility with me.

Savage simply does not understand what leadership is. Leadership is not being in the limelight all of the time. Leadership is doing what you expect your followers to do, working, sacrificing, taking all of the blame for what goes wrong, and giving all of the credit for what goes right. Romney has demonstrated leadership over and over.

As far as I can tell Bosman posted 3 articles regarding Palin: the "More Left Wing Blame Game, the "Joe Scarborough-Toast" and now the Chris Chiliza item.

In the first two, he was, at least to me, mocking the left and if not supporting Palin, being benign. He didn't write any comments dooming her. In the last, there was no commentary at all, so I guess that's open to interpatation.

I guess merely acting as the host/owner and posting items relevant to the topics of the day is enough to evoke the wrath.

But hey, maybe he'll pull a Savage and flip-flop on Palin, so you guys can adore him.

"You know, when I see a woman walking around with a burqa, I see a Nazi. That's what I see -- how do you like that? -- a hateful Nazi who would like to cut your throat and kill your children. Don't give me this crap that they're doing it out of a sacred ritual or rite. It's not required by the Quran that a woman walk around in a seventh-century drape. She's doing it to spit in your face. She's saying, "You white moron, you, I'm going to kill you if I can." That's how I see it!"~Michael Savage

Sorry Doug, while you may not like it, Savage's comments are highly relevent. First off, he praises Palin which rebukes what Scarborough and Cilizza had to say. In addition, he voiced his opinion on Mitt Romney, which IS newsworthy. This comes from a guy who has not been supportive of Sarah Palin in the past.

Savage has over 10 million listeners. I suspect he's more influential among potential primary voters than Scarborough or Cilizza.

I agree hamaca. I am a huge Palin fan and supporter but I feel that Romney did nothing wrong this week. I don't expect him to drop his entire Mid-East visit to comment on the ravings of the loons in the Mainstream Media.

As for Savage. I listened to him once and he comes off as a blowhard. I much prefer Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Laura Ingraham and Levin.

I also did not think that Bosman was attacking Palin in the 3 posts mentioned above.

"Then she had to go and make the reference to "blood libel"." MarK, you too? I expect that kind of comment from hot-heads within your camp, but you. Is there anybody besides a few people in your camp that is mature enough to lead. Comments like this are a perfect illustration of why some of us FEAR the idea of President Romney. I pray his closest advisers have a lot more sense than what was displayed by his average camp members this week.

Politically, I see no reason why Romney would come to Palin's defense. To the grassroots, primary base it might have been a good decision to make a statement while in the Middle East about the media. If Palin's Presidential aspirations are doomed, then someone will need to get those votes...as is...it looks like Huckabee is the one who is interested in them and not Romney...doesn't make much sense. I guess they decided it was a better idea to let Palin take the hit, then try to woo some of her supporters if she doesn't run or loses early in the primaries.

This is one of ROmney's problems...he just isn't that politically savvy...if it's not something he can throw money at or write an op-ed about...he seems lost in a sea of political ineptness. Hopefully he has better advisers this time around...for his own sake.

Good point OJ! I didn't expect that from marK. Just because the media distorted the easily understood metaphor of "blood libel," doesn't mean Palin was wrong to use it. Powerful words get noticed. More people watched that video due to the media's idiotic coverage of that one phrase...if that's a bad idea...then I do not know a good one...not to mention that she was spot on.

Kindly reread my post. The gist of it was it was a mistake for Sarah Palin to use a phrase that keeps the controversy going -- unless she wanted to keep the controversy going. Then it was a smart thing to do.

marK, I cannot agree with that, Palin uses strong language and strong metaphors to make a strong point. The only problem with with the blood libel statement was that, as always, the MSM decided to take the stupid-route and assumed the average American would be stupid enough to follow. To say, or even imply, that what the media was doing was not a blood libel is a choice in ignorance. If the statement forced the "controversy" to continue, then that is to the detriment of the MSM.

Here's the sentence: "But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn."

If she had stopped the sentence at "blood libel", I could understand people suggesting it was all about her. But she didn't.

I believe her point was to slam the media's hypocrisy, i.e. THEY are manufacturing the target hoopla in order to get people all riled up (hatred and violence) in ways that THEY, the leftist media, claim at their dinner parties to be so against.

Of course the media is going to stop at "blood libel". Are they really going to report on the rest of the sentence? No. It's incriminating. It calls them out. It's brilliant.

Here is someone who makes up her own words and can't answer a question about what she reads.

"Blood Libel" certainly was not on the tip of HER tongue in her statement. I'm sure it was inserted by someone who should be fired because it only added fuel to those who chose to dissect her statement.

Without that term, we wouldn't be having this conversation now, would we?

Conman, your schtick is already prominent on this site without your two cents...at least be original. We get it...Romney is the best person in the entire world...Palin is stupid and shouldn't even run a PTA...blah, blah, BORING...

Conman...you forgot that she doesn't know Africa is a continent or that she claims she can see Russia from her backyard or that, a mayor, she tried to ban books or that Trig isn't her son...did I forget any?

I know you're new around here, but I have repeatedly stated what I feel Palin's flaws are BUT what does that have to do with your obtuse statements?

I, for one, am trying to have an adult conversation about politics, the state of our union, the future of our party and who, I THINK, should be our nominee. Maybe if you attempted to discuss your disagreements on where Palin stands on the policies as opposed to making infantile attacks on how you perceive her intellect to be maybe we could have an actual discussion and you might learn something.

This morning's comments are why folks laugh and can't take some Palin supporter seriously.

First off - Kudo's to A.J. R. who expressed a sober and rational thought at 12:45 am. You nailed it exactly and any discussion deviating from your points are a waste of time. Hopefully others in your camp will follow your example.

In my eyes you are the de facto leader of the Palin camp on this site.

Well MarK, perhaps I do not understand the point you are making. Honestly, I respectfully believe that if Mrs. Palin wanted to keep this controversy going for the sake of it 'blood libel' would not be the term she'd use. I'll be blunt. I ask you why when several other people use this expression on the main-stream media, nobody bats an eye? There is nothing controversial about her using that term and she did not use that term incorrectly. Prior to today, (while I view the world differently than you) I believe that that you were both a smart man and an honest man. I will assume that I was correct on both counts, but to do so I believe that I also must assume that you do not realize how that specific term is used these day.

What was Sarah's goal with the release of that speech? Was it to calm the waters? If it was, the speech failed. It didn't calm any waters.

Was it to keep the controversy going? If it was, then it succeeded.

If it didn't achieve its goal, she made a mistake. If it achieved its goal, she didn't make a mistake.

I prefer to think of Sarah Palin as a very smart, very savvy lady who knows what she is doing. After playing the legacy media for over two years now, she knows exactly what buttons to push and when to press them. And she does it marvelously. It's quite entertaining to watch her, the master at work.

Therefore, I find it difficult to believe that she had no idea that that phrase would get the reaction it did.

Either Sarah Palin is a smart lady who knows what she is doing, or she is someone who hasn't a clue of the impact of the words she carefully chooses to use. These were no off-the-cuff, spur of the moment remarks we are talking about here. She had four days to write the speech and carefully hone it. Every word was carefully weighed.

So which is it? Sarah Palin knows what she is doing, or she doesn't know? Your choice.

Nearly every situation involving Sarah Palin is so over-wrought with drama, and the post-mortem analysis is so tourturous and contentious, it makes any discussion of her, one of the most mentally gruelling and fatiguing endeavors available to modern man today.

marK, I don't know what your point is? At first I did and now I am not so sure. It seems you are talking in circles. What was your original point? Are you saying that she chose her words carefully and she wanted that phrase to be controversial and that was a mistake? Or are you saying that she chose her words carefully and didn't realize that it would be a controversy? It seems like, no matter what the answer is...she will be wrong in your mind. I tend to think that she chose her words carefully and the entire phrase was deliberately taken out of context because liberal journalists enjoy screwing around with her...does that mean it was wrong to say, when the sentiment was correct? Should she hold her tongue because some scumbag, intellectually dishonest reporter will twist her words around...I don't think she should and I am glad that she didn't.

Doug, since I was the only Palin supporter making comments this morning I was wondering what was so ridiculous about what I said? Second, I agree about AJR...he's the most rational in my family as well.

Well MarK, either you are missing something or I am. Maybe Mrs. Palin did consider every word she wrote, but nobody, not even her and not even your camp leader can predict how the Left can irrationally react to it.

Doug, Romney had an opportunity to appeal to Palin supporters by making a brief statement about the media. Politically...it would have been a smart thing to do. I was merely stating that opportunity was missed, on his part, and I feel there are enough instances to support my thesis that perhaps he doesn't surround himself with the type of people to realize such an obvious thing. JMO.

I guess one could say that this post was purposefully posted to stir the pot but one could also argue that Bosman's post about Cilizza was for the same reason...nobody is right in this instance. I never once mentioned, nor believed, that Romney was a deplorable human being for not coming to the defense of conservatives being attacked by the media...I just merely said it would have been a smart thing to do...politically.

What is the difference between Bosman posting the words of Scarborough, and me posting the words of Savage? I don't think many conservatives take Scarborough seriously, but I don't mind that Bosman posted it. Besides, it's his site. He can post whatever he wants. It does not offend me in the least, but given the presence of THAT post, the Savage post is fair game. I don't hear Bosman complaining about it...

I am NOT criticizing Palin. As I keep saying over and over and over again -- Palin is a smart, savvy, intelligent woman. She is in no way naive. She has been dealing with the legacy media for over two years now. She knows what buttons to push, and when to push them.

I am saying that she deliberately choose the words "Blood Libel" knowing full well that it would create controversy.

It is either that, or I am supposed to believe that a woman as smart, intelligent, and savvy as she is had no idea that the words "blood libel" would create any sort of reaction. It didn't dawn on her for a second that the foaming-at-the-mouth legacy media who are watching her every word looking for any conceivable reason to fault her were going to let a choice phrase like "Blood libel" pass by without comment.

Jersey, the only fault I would have with what she did is if she is really, honestly thinking about running for President. If she is perfectly content to be (as Clizza put it) a "GOP Celebrity", there isn't anything wrong with what she did. She is laughing all the way to the bank, so to speak.

The way I see it is she is a master manipulator of the legacy media. She's playing them like a violin. She is getting exactly what she wants out of them. It is extremely entertaining and satisfying to watch her in action. Those fools are getting manipulated, and they fall for it every time. Now that takes smarts.

Now, how can you construe that as criticism of Palin? Criticism of some of her fans? possibly. Criticism of her? never! Admiration more like.

marK, I just disagree that you can't have one without the other. Palin can say quasi-controversial(I'm giving you a bone because I don't think it is all that controversial) and still intend to run for President. You obviously feel differently...we should know within six months.